I came on here because I am tired of conservatism being linked up with these fascist Nazis like the guy who killed the people in Buffalo.
Racist Nazis are not conservatives in the American tradition of honoring the Constitution and the values in the Declaration of Independence.
Race war Nazis, who take pride in mowing down innocent, unarmed people, have nothing to do with American conservativism which is about individual rights, responsibility, and liberty.
These horrendous acts by race war Nazis (I don't care if they call themselves Nazis or not, that's what they are) discredit conservatism. People think the choice is between murdering lunatics and Big Pharma controlled Democrats.
We are left with no choice.
And to top it off, these Nazis are destroying the greatness of America. We used to be proud of defeating Nazis. As a conservative, I was proud that we moved beyond slavery, fighting the Civil War (remember Republicans were against slavery, Democrats, for), many conservatives joined with the Civil Rights movement (against most Southern Democrats). Blacks fought with whites in World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
We are one nation, under God, no matter what ethnicity we are, if we hold to the Constitution. That's what matters, not the color of someone's skin.
Race war Nazis are destroying that and destroying America, weakening us internally as well as externally.
So I'm going to say something radical: they want a war? We should take that war to them. I don't mean Black Americans should take the war to them. I mean patriotic Americans, black white, brown, whatever. They're going to shoot up innocent people? I say we start taking up arms against them. They're armed. They aren't innocent. They intend to do harm to Americans. They are a violent threat to Americans and America.
Patriots can give it to these cowardly Nazis shooting up unarmed citizens ten times over. 100 times over. Just wipe them from the face of the earth.
Who's with me?
How to debate with you when any source material, as you reference, is not accurate due to circumstantial context. Then later, using source documents to support your points of view against circumstantial context? You have to chose an epistemology or else the argument is not internally coherent.
Fascism is state control of estates beyond the economic (since that is a special case of fascism called socialism). Communism is a special case of socialism that believes in collective ownership. Using this definition and historic evidence of past control of the means of production we then can clearly categorize Nazi as socialist. They are also nationalists (not debating that).
Modern parties likely do not believe the same ideologies. This is true of GOP and Dem. Modern GOP is ~ classic liberalism. Modern Dem ~ classic socialism / borderline fascism.
Agree that corporatism is a special case of anarchism, was using it as an example implementation of how hierarchies do emerge within that form of "governance". Agree that social communities could also emerge independent of corporations but question the practical distinction.
No, no, no. You don't get to declare source material "not accurate due to circumstantial context." That's an evasion. You have to demonstrate how it is out of context. My epistemology is fine and coherent. Your declaring it not so does not make it not so. The problem is that I do have source material and you do not. That's a disingenuous attempt to evade your problem.
I have defined fascism. I have let Hitler himself define what national socialism is. I have defined socialism. Find a Nazi who repudiates "private property." Find a socialist who doesn't. Communism is state ownership of production. You are attempting to side step the idea of ownership by using the word "control." As Hitler said, the state only "controls" the means of production in exceptional cases. As an authoritarian dictatorship, the state has ultimate power to do whatever, even compel corporations to produce what the Dictator demands. But the state does not own the means of production. The means of production still engage in capitalism, the acquiring of capital for the capitalist class. That is fundamentally not capitalism.
This is absolutely not true. First, the GOP is no long a neoliberal party. They have become a party of interventionism under Trump, via his protectionist policies, overwhelmingly supported by the GOP.
The Democratic Party has been a neoliberal party since Clinton, notoriously so. The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans in the level of mitigation they are willing to adopt to soften the blow for American workers. Democrats are willing to support more intervention than GOP, but they both support some and under Trump, GOP supports more than Dems now. The last Democrat to champion protectionism was Dick Gephardt and he lost hard.
Neither party per se is "fascist." Neither party believes in an absolute leader. And, besides, socialism and fascism are utterly different (as I have demonstrated with no rebuttal from you), so the Democrats can't be both. There are elements in the Democratic Party that are democratic socialist which is very much socialism lite, mostly advocating more regulation of capitalism and maybe some support for very limited publicly owned industry, but probably in the US that would be zero.
You have been living in some alternative reality where you have swallowed all these right-wing revisionisms whole. It's like Orwell's Newspeak. War is Peace. Fascism is Socialism. You're very confused.
Here's another example of that right-wing revisionism that I see a lot: The US is not a democracy because the word "democracy" doesn't appear in the Constitution. It is a Republic. The problem is that the term democracy is inclusive of the term Republic. Republics are representative democracies. They're just a type of democracy in which the people delegate their vote to an elected representative.
The problem with US representative democracy is that our system allows for legalized bribery, so the representatives don't really represent "we, the people" but mostly corporate or special interests that can inundate them with money and reward with lucrative lobbying jobs after they leave office. That's what makes democracy in the US a farce. But, if you read the anarchists like I said, you'd find that Bakunin predicted this:
That isn't anarchy. Anarchy is literally without hierarchy.
You know nothing about me and instead build a line of reasoning that mixes source materials, contextualization, and assumptions. I'm not going to invest any more time into such a rhetorical black hole.
You haven't said one thing of substance here.
Mixes source material? That is a nonsensical criticism.
Contextualization? You failed to make any coherent argument.
Assumptions? Yes. I've made some assumptions about you. Most of them you haven't denied, so I read that as my assumptions are largely correct.
My arguments have been clear and sourced. The problem here is that you know you're wrong on these points but can't admit it.
You're clearly motivated to adopt a particular agenda. Stop lying